BGAthletics6

Best comp I've used has been a PWS FSC556. Maybe on the expensive side and only compatible with the Gemtech Halo, but really keeps the muzzle steady while still keeping flash low. My rifle is significantly louder than anything else on the firing line, but follow up shots are a breeze. Oh, and anyone to your left and right will get pounded by the concussion, but that's what makes shooting with others fun! Like Dolomite said, your gas system and other components have a lot to do with recoil management. I don't have an adjustable gas block, but I run a mid-length gas system with a Spike's buffer and notice considerably less recoil than a carbine length system. The gas system, comp, buffer, and overall weight of the gun will all influence the behavior of the rifle.

Any recommended gunsmith's to install sights in the Mid TN area? Nashville, Clarksville, Franklin, Brentwood-ish areas? Thanks in advance for the help!

I hear ya. I don't know if someone has already mentioned it, but look at the Vortex Strike Eagle. MSRP is on par with the Leupold minus about $50. I'm not too much of a fan of the reticle on the Strike Eagle, but it offers a greater magnification range. 1-6 vs 1.25-4. If you're MIL/LE, check out Leupold's discount program. Many friends of mine continue to purchase their optics through this program and say that it's a great option.

When I got my .300 I was looking to spend under $250. I have never owned any 1-4 power scopes. Just a fixed 4x ACOG and some 3-9 power scopes on a couple of my hunting rifles. I chanced myself with the Nikon P223 1-4 20mm scope, and it's been great. Clear glass, easy adjustments on the fly, and the reticle is awesome. Here's a link to Midway's site with the scope. The scope is set on a Windham 16" .300 blackout and paired with a set of offset MBUS Pro's. I am very pleased with the quality and even more so with the price I paid.   I forgot to mention the mount. I got a vortex cantilever mount, and it positions the scope perfectly for my set LOP. If you're looking at LT mounts then there's no reason to consider the Vortex mount. Also, prior to purchasing the Magpul sights, I bought the XS offset sights. I loved the dot/ V setup. I read reviews on amazon mentioning how low they mounted to the receiver. I didn't think it would be an issue so I got them. Once I had them installed I immediately saw the issue. I had to squeeze by cheek to the stock so hard and rotate my shoulders upwards to get the front sight to lay correctly in the rear sight. They're an awesome concept, but the rear sight needs to be a hair taller for a proper sight picture. Hope this helps.     http://www.midwayusa.com/product/569409/nikon-p-223-rifle-scope-1-tube-15-4x20mm-bdc-600-reticle-matte   http://www.midwayusa.com/product/2420197402/vortex-cantilever-1-piece-extended-scope-mount-picatinny-style-with-integral-rings-ar-15-flat-top-matte

From my understanding the shells don't change. You could buy a 1.0 and use the shell on a 3.0. I had a Zorn holster for an old Glock 36. I don't think the kydex on either the Alien Gear or Zorn was too abrasive. As for comparison between the 2.0 and 3.0, I think the 3.0 is more robust. Flexibility between the two seems to remain the same. My 2.0 formed a good curve shape not long after I first got it, and I think the 3.0 will do the same. The leather-ish material on the 2.0 was slick and allows for an extremely easy draw/ re-holster. The new material on the 3.0 has a texture to it which gives some more resistance when drawing/ re-holstering. I'm sure I could minimize this if I played with the retention, but I like the amount of retention I currently have. I like the secure fit. I definitely see the 3.0 lasting way longer than the 2.0. Comfort and fit, the two are both extremely comfortable. I am 5'8/ 153lbs, with a 30in waist. I carry right at the 4/5 o'clock position and have no issues whatsoever. Shorts, pants, or even a Speedo...the 3.0 does a great job of both concealing the full sized HK while making it nearly unnoticed. So my recommendation would be to purchase the 3.0 if you have the money. If not, just stick with the 2.0 because it takes care of the job just as well. One final note: my 2.0 neoprene backing began flaking away after a year and some change of carrying it. I called Alien Gear and they sent me a new backing and parts kit with no questions asked.

Just recently received my Alien Gear Cloak Tuck 3.0. I have a 2.0 for a PT111 G2 and have enjoyed carrying it for over a year. After purchasing my VP40, I dug around and couldn't find any IWB holster options for under $60. Alien Gear has options for the VP9 but not the 40. I purchased the VP9 option regardless, and the VP40 still fits perfectly. The new material on the 3.0 is really nice as well. It's got a textured grippy feel to it and minimizes some of the wriggle room that I had on the 2.0. The 3.0 material does a great job of keeping the firearm snug while still allowing for quick drawing and re-holstering. It's a composite rubber-ish mix that looks like it'll hold up well. Thought I'd share this little tidbit for anyone still looking for VP40 holster options!

Hopefully y'all can give me some specifics on the ballistics of this ammo. I currently have my rifle sighted in with SIG's Elite Performance supersonic .300 blackout load, but I plan to do some coyote hunting with the Remington rounds since they're cheaper. On Remington's website they show ballistics for the 125gr OTFB, and I'm curious if the 120gr will have similar stats. I'm shooting these out of a 16in barrel. Thanks!

Grunt's right. Both are great pistols, it's just down to whichever one floats your boat. Also, the trigger housing failure's I heard of were on the V1's. Even a close friend of mine had it happen to him while in the middle of a course at Front Sight. Just something to be aware of, but I don't believe it was overly common.

Any info on the rifle match? Thanks.

I chose the VP over the PPQ for these reasons. I've had trigger time with the PPQ and shot both M&P's and Glocks. I purchased the VP40 this past weekend and couldn't be happier. My take on the Two:   Both triggers seem to break pretty early and have little to no over travel. Unlike the M&P which seems to break at the very rear of the trigger well. Both have a superior out of the box trigger compared to Glocks. The PPQ has a smoother reset when compared to the VP, but the VP reset is still close in comparison. The PPQ slide release is MASSIVE. Makes engaging it quite easy.  VP slide is a more square profile compared to the PPQ tapered profile.   Why I chose the VP over the PPQ: I prefer the trigger guard mag release on the VP. Very quick magazine changes without adjusting your firing hand. You can get this on the first version PPQ if you want... Options to customize both side panels and back straps on the VP. Standard luminescent sights. Slightly beefier/ heavier slide for the .40 cal's recoil. The VP pointed more natural for me, and the LOP fit my grip as soon as I picked it up.   My #1 reason for choosing the VP was HK's reliability and lack of any major breakdowns with these models. The version 1 PPQ's had trigger housing failures after a few thousand rounds and required users to send their firearm back to Walther for replacement. From what I hear, the M2 hasn't exhibited any major issues. There are lemons in every bunch, but I think the VP has a better track record so far.